November 5, 2006

Is Nancy Pelosi Predicting Failure to Capture the House?

I was struck by several lines in a Drudge-linked election interview with Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco, 100%) on the SFGate website (carried on the front page of the print version, I believe). There are so many wonderful examples right here of everything we've been saying about the Lady from Baghdad by the Bay; but there is one thing so divisive, so loathsome, that it dwarfs every other infelicity she utters.

But I'll get to that last. Let's have some fun, first.

Most folks seem to be focusing on this particularly rational, ladylike outburst from the moderate representative from San Franciso:

"We're going to take back the country for the American people -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- because it has been held hostage by the radical right wing of the Republican Party," Pelosi said.

"This is a freak show, and it has to come to an end," Pelosi said. "This is about a Congress and White House whose purpose is to concentrate wealth into the top 1 percent of our country at the expense of the middle class."

Leave aside her direct steal of "held hostage" from Rush Limbaugh... who of course meant it as a joke, while Nancy Pelosi is deadly serious; the idea that anyone who represents San Francisco, of all places, calling any other group of people a "freak show" is hilarious ("high-larious," if you're George Will).

As is the idea that any Republican can be called a "freak" after eight years of a Democratic White House driven by alternating greed, corruption, and satyriasis -- a vacillating, rudderless administration that encompassed, and is forever defined by, the president of the United States accepting millions of dollars from the People's Liberation Army of Red China (and changing U.S. defense policy to favor the Communists), pardoning Marc Rich in exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Clinton library, being impeached, and trying to explain a stain.

Then there is this:

"If indeed it turns out the way that people expect it to turn out, the American people will have spoken, and they will have rejected the course of action the president is on."

So if it doesn't turn out "the way that people expect it to turn out," will that mean the American people will not have spoken? (Actually, that is exactly what she means; read on.)

If they win, Democrats will immediately reach out to Bush to find a bipartisan way to begin redeploying troops "outside of Iraq," Pelosi said. They will also apply pressure to disarm the militias, amend the Iraqi constitution and engage in diplomacy in the region.

There they go again! A "bipartisan way" to cut and run. And then, after cutting, and after running, they will "apply pressure to disarm the militias." What pressure would that be? Without Coalition troops, how exactly can we pressure Iraqis to do anything at all? Why... by a vote, of course! A big, bipartisan "sense of the House" resolution that militias are icky and Iraqis should disband them. Brilliant, simply brilliant.

The plan brings to mind a wonderful sentence from the G.K. Chesterton classic the Man Who Was Thursday: "You die for Mankind first, and then you get up and smite their oppressors."

(In fact, if the Coaltion were to redeploy to Okinawa, as Rep. John Murtha, D-PA 75%, demands, militias could only increase, not decrease; if neither side could rely upon American forces to hold down the other until Iraqi democracy is established, the only alternative would be to raise tens of thousands to defend their tribal territory. I suppose this is beyond Mrs. Pelosi's ken; at least, she doesn't seem to have thought of it.)

Or this:

"It just goes to show you, though, how bankrupt the Republicans are of ideas," Pelosi said. "This election is about the president of the United States; it's not about me. But it's interesting they've made the president of the United States the political hit man, and now he's making personal attacks, not only on me, but on the city I proudly represent."

Mrs. Pelosi... the president of the United States is not up for election. You are. If the Democrats win, you will (maybe) become the Squeaker of the House... not president. The election is all about you!

And here is one where the wannabe elite medium SFGate, gushing over the Speaker of Her Mind, demonstrates just how neutral it is about this race:

The refrain of "San Francisco values" has been used in campaigns across the country to tie more conservative Democrats to the liberal politics of Pelosi and the city, in what many view as a not-so-subtle reference to the city's embrace of diversity.

Diversity! Yes, that's what we have against San Francisco... can't stand all that -- diversity.

But frivolity must end; now is the time to sober up. I found these earlier lines much more chilling:

"I know where the numbers are in these races, and I know that they are there for the 15; today (it's) 22 to 26," Pelosi said Friday. [On a completely unrelated side issue, Mort Kondracke now predicts 4 to 8 more Democratic pickups in the House than even Nancy Pelosi fantasizes!]

Pelosi cautioned that the number of Democratic House victories could be higher or lower and said her greatest concern is over the integrity of the count -- from the reliability of electronic voting machines to her worries that Republicans will try to manipulate the outcome.

"That is the only variable in this," Pelosi said. "Will we have an honest count?''

This is not the way a confident person speaks. A leader who really believes she's headed for the big office does not start laying the ground work for the López Obrador Gambit.

What does that mean? It comes from the Mexican election, won by conservative Mexican President Felipe Calderón on July 2nd of this year. Despite all legal avenues now being closed to challenge Calderón's victory, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, of the Democratic Revolution Party, has yet to concede that he lost, so far as I've seen. I'm sure there are probably still hundreds, if not thousands of his supporters crowding around Zocalo Plaza, insisting that López Obrador is the "people's president," assuming the Rev. Al Sharpton isn't busy with the title at the moment.

What is Nancy Pelosi saying here? That she's confident of victory, unless the Republicans have secretly reprogrammed the dreaded Diebold machines to steal the fourth election in a row? Is there any other way to interpret her words?

Honestly, it sounds to my ear as if she has realized that they're not going to make it... so she's setting up the next two years of Democratic false accusations: everybody knows we really won; if the count went against us, the only possible explanation is -- electronic sabotage!

I cannot imagine anything more divisive -- and destructive to America -- than convincing nearly half the population that our elections are corrupt and fraudulent and should be disregarded in favor of People-Power solutions. Is this really the world that the Democrats want to live in, a world where we have rioting in the streets after every election, as in a South American banana republic?

Do they actually think that, unable to prevail at the ballot box, they can win by mulish refusal to accept reality, suing their way into office, and when all else fails -- by riot?

This is incomprehensible to me. Even in 1980, I don't recall the Democrats claiming that Ronald Reagan's election was "stolen." This is something new and repugnant.

Say, how many levels of basement can the Democrats dig, anyway? Is it just "turtles, turtles, turtles, all the way down?"

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, November 5, 2006, at the time of 3:06 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/1436

Some writer in the Boston Globe suggested the same thing last week, I believe. What neither he nor Pelosi seem willing to point out is that any disaster from the new voting machines would be the fault of the Democratic Party, which threw a snit after Gore's loss and demanded an end to the quite accurate punch card system, and demanded we move on to a hackable computerized voting system with the so-called "Help America Vote Act." In my district we still use optical scanners and paper ballots remain, but this is MA and they have no real fear of losing the state.

Yes, Nancy is predicting (and fearing) failure and yes, they are crazy enough to try and go the Mexican route.

On a side note, I keep wondering when they are going to figure out that since they've completely sold most black folks on this nonsense of "stealing" elections, they've depressed actual turnout in black neighborhoods because the natural response to such a pitch as sold by the Democrats is . . . apathy.

This never seems to occur to the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.

The above hissed in response by: RattlerGator at November 5, 2006 4:36 PM

This is not the way a confident person speaks. A leader who really believes she's headed for the big office does not start laying the ground work for the López Obrador Gambit.

And she not the only one setting this table.

Thanks Dafydd.....I laughed and cried thru this whole post.....At least now I can go to sleep knowing that someone else sees who's running the asylum on the left.

Northern Cal is not far enough away from Pelosi's idiology. Vaccination is required.

The "perfect" cartoon would be a half dozen Democratic leaders standing in the middle of an intersection in downtown San Francisco*, (scratching their heads) and signs pointing in ALL directions reading: "A new direction".

Where I live we also use paper ballots and optical scanners. Works pretty well, doesn’t it? Even if it isn’t as “science fictiony” as a certain lizard would prefer. (Sorry, bigger, Dafydd and I went around on this in a prior thread.)

I’m not sure I share your enthusiasm for punch cards, though. At least our optically scanned ballots don’t have any “hanging chads.” The fragility of the cards is why they had to do their recounts manually. If you need to recount scanned ballots, you just scan them again -- presumably using different scanners. A manual count would be a last resort.

The above hissed in response by: Dick E at November 5, 2006 10:06 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Dafydd-

What you accuse Nancy Peligrosa (Spanish -- look it up) of is exactly the kind of issue I was trying to get at in our previous go-round. Voter confidence in the voting system is absolutely the most important issue when selecting voting technology.

In the past week, our local left-wing MSM rag has published at least two articles laying the groundwork for conspiracy theories should the upcoming election not go according to (their) plan: About a week ago they ran an article by Tim Golden of the NY Times discussing the Venezuelan (Hugo Chavez?!) company Smartmatic’s ownership of Sequoia Voting Systems which, the article says, “has voting equipment installed in 17 states and the District of Columbia.” Today they ran an LA Times article by Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, the main thrust of which is that there can be problems with touch screen voting systems and with their paper trail backups (where they have them); the article of course blames the federal government (that’s the Republicans -- wink, wink) for the problem.

No all-electronic or electronic plus printout system provides the level of voter confidence of even an old fashioned paper ballot, put it in a box, count ’em by hand system -- despite the fact that such confidence might be misplaced because of inaccuracies in manual counts, ballot box stuffing, etc.

Where I live and, I would assume, in Massachusetts where bigger lives, the only time we hear about ballot security or voter confidence problems is when we hear about problems from elsewhere. I wonder why.

The above hissed in response by: Dick E at November 5, 2006 10:10 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Dafydd-

Hmm … I just reread my last post. Scratch that stuff about voter confidence in manual count paper systems. I remember too well the shenanigans in the Chicago of my youth. (I recently heard that voter apathy there is so high that some people are only going to vote once!)

But I still say that nothing beats paper, optically scanned ballots for combined security, voter confidence and auditability.

Left unexamined in this flurry of angst about some Venezuelan company owning some other company that owns some other company that makes touchscreen systems is this: why, exactly, do the Democrats think that Hugo Chavez will use his remote control devices to rig the Dreaded Diebold Devices to reelect the Bush-led Republicans?

I don't like to judge before all the facts are in, but I was rather under the impression that Chavez is pulling for the Democrats.

Second: except for early voters who seek out touchscreen systems, all the other voters in California vote via optical scanners... not only everyone who votes at his precinct on election day, but also everyone who votes absentee (I know, because Sachi had to fill out her absentee ballot because she will be out of town on Tuesday).

In order to use touchscreen, you really have to plan in advance and go out of your way. So stop fretting; obviously, anyone going to that much trouble to vote touchscreen isn't going to lack confidence in the system.

Finally, I note that the need for confidence in the system is no excuse to throw reason to the four winds. Suppose the Democrats started a rumor that optical scanners were all made by the Gnomes of Zurich, who were major stockholders in an amusement-park chain that leased land that once was owned by the third cousin twice removed of Karl Rove.

If Democrats therefore began running around like chickens with their legs cut off, screaming that Rove was going to reprogram all the optical scanners... that wouldn't be any reason to get rid of them, because it's preposterous.

The same is true for touchscreen systems: nobody has ever shown that they were actually used to rig an election. All we have are some very imaginative conspiracy theories, and we mustn't give in to them.

I find it unbelievably humorous that the party most closely associated with voter fraud over the last century is the one crying foul.

The above hissed in response by: Big D at November 6, 2006 9:58 AM

The following hissed in response by: boffo

Clearly the Democratic party leadership is completely insane, but is this insanity shared by the rank and file house membership? I sincerely hope that if Pelosi tries to pull an Obrador, there will be a back-bencher rebellion throwing her out of her leadership position.

A sane Democratic party would be good for the country, even if it means the Republicans would get crushed in 2008.

Good post Dafydd. Nancy Pelosi is the mama moonbat of the House. Indeed a sane Democrat Party would be a good thing. Can someone explain to me how a Harry Truman could make his way in the current party?

An interesting take, and a Science of Discworld reference as well. I have said before, and will again, that this we won, but you cheated, garbage started a long time ago, but Gore really refined it to the numbing inanity that passes for debate these days. "If we win, pay no attention to the dead folk pulling the lever from beyond the grave; if we lose---you--you--wah!--wah!--YOU CHEATED!!! Still amazes me that all the voting scandals have been pro-Democrat. Funny.

First, about Venezuelan ownership of voting technology, you’re absolutely right: I’m sure Chavez would prefer Democrats in power. I just think the Dems would probably use even this issue as an excuse if they lose. Only problem is, it’s a little hard to pin on the GOP. The crying would probably be something like, “You dastardly Republicans were in charge, so you should have done SOMETHING to keep Hugo Chavez out of our voting booths.” I doubt that they’d let Chavez’ party preference get in the way of a good witch hunt. Pretty lame, but the moonbats would eat it up.

Second, I’m glad to hear that California’s voting system meets with your approval.

Third,

Finally, I note that the need for confidence in the system is no excuse to throw reason to the four winds.

I certainly can’t argue with that.

Suppose the Democrats started a rumor that optical scanners were all made by the Gnomes of Zurich, who were major stockholders in an amusement-park chain that leased land that once was owned by the third cousin twice removed of Karl Rove

If Democrats therefore began running around like chickens with their legs cut off, screaming that Rove was going to reprogram all the optical scanners... that wouldn't be any reason to get rid of them, because it's preposterous.

Yes, of course it would be preposterous, because all they would have to do is recount the votes to find out if the problem is real or a vast, chicken-wing conspiracy. Anybody thinking about tampering with optical scanner software to rig election results is absolutely nuts! Unless it’s a very small-scale scheme (thus having minimal effect on election results), the malfeasance will almost certainly be found out.

The same is true for touchscreen systems.

No, it’s not preposterous to get rid of touchscreen systems if election officials can’t find ways to verify their results. Expensive, yes, but not preposterous. Look, I’ve had a lot of experience dealing with computers in business over the years. I have never known a business that would be comfortable entrusting their important data to a system that had no backup or recovery capability. Computer systems people understand this need, even though, in their heart-of-hearts, they can’t imagine their system would ever fail. It can.

And I have also seen computer systems that have been carefully vetted by the data processing people, but that still give wrong answers.

The obvious difference between voting and business systems is that I can’t imagine a business that acquires and compiles all the data that is important to it in a single day. But if a business did face that problem, believe me they’d find a way to verify that the data in the computer was capable of being independently verified.

…nobody has ever shown that they were actually used to rig an election.

True. (At least I certainly haven’t heard of it happening.) But errors certainly can happen. I’m sure you remember from our last go-round that election officials have found errors in optical scanner tabulation software. Is there any reason to believe such errors are impossible (or, if errors do occur, they will be immaterial) for touchscreen systems?

The optical scanner errors could be detected and corrected because officials had paper ballots to reconfirm the totals. If the same errors occurred on touchscreens, who would know? Maybe the manufacturers or their trusted independent verifiers would find the problem, but state election officials would never find it themselves because, of course, the software is proprietary.

Suppose, for example, that in the last election a state’s compilation software had been erroneously set to count all votes for Kerry as votes for the “Smoke More Weed Party” candidate. An error of such magnitude would be obvious (except to the dopers) as soon as returns started coming in. Can you fix it? With paper ballots, sure. With touchscreens, maybe, but only if the system creates a paper printout backup, and only if the paper printout was created by the votes entered, rather than by the compilation subroutine of the software.

That’s a simple and obvious error, but there can be any number of other errors that would be less obvious and less likely of discovery, but that still can swing an election.

All we have are some very imaginative conspiracy theories, and we mustn't give in to them.

Not that conspiracies are impossible, but nothing I have said here requires a conspiracy. All I’m talking about are errors, some of which are known to have occurred in optical scanner systems. What is the probability that no similar errors have affected touchscreens?

Finally, what are the advantages of touchscreen voting?

Touchscreens can prevent double voting, But if a person votes for more than one candidate, I’m not sure we’ve lost much in not counting their ballot.

Touchscreens prevent non-voting. (Some systems can be set to prevent the voter from skipping a candidate or an issue.) I understand that not many jurisdictions do this. Good. They shouldn’t.

Touchscreens make it easier for some disabled people to vote. I’ve heard this argument, but I’m not sure it’s true. I know that where I live and vote, a disabled voter can bring an assistant with them or request one at the polling place. Touchscreens don’t take care of all of disabled people either -- as far as I know, there are no Braille touchscreens.

Touchscreens represent gee-whiz, state of the art technology. So what? I suppose that could be the tipping point that gets a few more people out to vote, but I sure hope its not many.

I’m sure there are more advantages. But I’m talking about real, objective, technological advantages -- not just because they’re “science fictiony” or because people like using them.

With touchscreens, maybe, but only if the system creates a paper printout backup, and only if the paper printout was created by the votes entered, rather than by the compilation subroutine of the software.

When I voted touchscreen back on October 25th, it printed a paper printout backup. Each printed "page" was a little wider than a cash register receipt and about 5" long.

When each page prints, it is visible to the voter, so he can check to ensure it has correctly registered all of his votes. But it stays in the machine for easy retrieval in the event of a manual recount.

If the voter doesn't like it, he has two more attempts to get it right. If it's still messing up, he can talk to the poll workers. I had no difficulty verifying that all of the printed backups matched how I voted, as did the screen image.

It's just as secure as optical scanning... and it's faster, because it takes a while to find the correct oval on an optical scanning card and ink it in completely.

In any event, the real vote-fraud problem is not the machine; the real problems include:

People who aren't eligible to vote registering and voting anyway;

People who are eligible registering under multiple names and voting often;

Polls in Democratic districts being kept open longer than polls in Republican districts;

Voters being scared away from the polls by union thugs;

Democrats going to court to get their pet judges to invalidate Republican votes;

And winos being paid with a bottle of Thunderbird to vote the way the supplier wants.

None of these is either helped or hindered by optical scanners, touchscreen systems, cuniform tablets, or any other form of tallying a vote.

Thanks for finally explaining how those printouts work. Sounds like a pretty good system. I know that not all states using electronic voting have those locked-in-but-visible printouts -- let’s hope they get them.

I wrote this before I saw your latest response:

I just learned of an excellent application for electronic voting. At least it’s excellent in concept -- I don’t know the details of how it works or how much it costs.

Our state has started using electronic voting systems for the visually impaired. A woman interviewed on the radio said she was impressed with the confidentiality of the audio system -- she no longer needed someone to assist her in voting.

Blind voters around here have never before been able to verify that their actual choices were on their ballots; they had to rely on someone else to record their votes. So I guess I’m willing to accept this kind of a system even if it doesn’t have a good audit trail. But only for this small group of special case voters.

The above hissed in response by: Dick E at November 7, 2006 4:37 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in,
.
Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

Powerhouses

Milblogs

Bear Flag League

The Bear Flag League blogroll will resume when BFL switches from BlogRolling to some other link-management site that does not trigger "malware" security alerts. We apologize for the inconvenience, but, well, you know.